Europe’s new Eastern raiders

ISTANBUL — Maybe history does repeat itself: the first time as tragedy, the second as a European Commission proposal.

They carry different names now, but raiders from the East are once again back at the gates of Europe. Once again, fear is rippling across the Continent. And, once again, the answer is to stop cowering in our corner and to venture out into the world.

From the 5th to the 15th century, Europe was continuously exposed to a succession of invaders coming from the recesses of Asia, riding through the open spaces of southern Russia and entering through the Hungarian plains.

That’s when Attila the Hun earned his nickname “the scourge of God” and the Mongols were called Tatars in a reference to Tartarus, the Latin name for hell.

The Age of Discovery is best seen as Europe’s attempt to break free from its precarious position, caged between the western seas and the eastern steppes, and to conquer the unknown abyss from which chaos had always emerged.

Crises and challenges unaddressed by an active foreign policy make themselves felt later in the domestic context.

Today’s raiders are far less violent, but no less frightening to those living west of the Urals.

Think of today’s corporate raiders from China, plotting to acquire the best and brightest of European companies in order to appropriate the latest key technologies in robotics and artificial intelligence.

Cyber operations are the best example of modern day raiding: A way to penetrate the enemy’s camp undetected in order to pillage resources or sow chaos.

While European elites continue to believe in an international system of markets, trade and free movement of people, more and more voters see only the work of blind forces and competing states in an increasingly chaotic world.

Factories are being closed because of competition from China and elsewhere, and the message communicated to workers is that their country is no longer able to compete. Growing numbers of immigrants have a measurable impact on neighborhoods and the provision of public services, predominantly affecting the poor.

Finally, terrorists are seen to be capable of striking at will from their bases abroad and cells in European capitals.

The real solution to Europe’s troubles is exactly what it was five centuries ago: to leave our corner at the edge of ocean and head out into the world.

In Europe, you now define yourself politically depending on which raiders look most threatening. Socialists are worried about competition from China and its destructive impact on the welfare state. Liberals fear Russia with its aggressive form of authoritarianism and disinformation campaigns.

The conservative right is rallying against Islam, which it sees as inspiring a new wave of nomadic invaders, stateless terrorists and refugees plotting to take over Europe. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán seemingly wakes up every day thinking he is Janos Hunyadi, the hero of the wars against the Turks in the 15th century.

Politicians from across the political spectrum are calling for new walls, physical or legal. Populists are placing their hopes in a return to traditional European culture, promising that fate will be on our side if we repent our ways.

They’ve got things backward. The real solution to Europe’s troubles is exactly what it was five centuries ago: to leave our corner at the edge of ocean and head out into the world.

Forget Orbán’s hero Hunyadi. What we need is a contemporary version of those Spanish and Portuguese navigators who took Europe to the ends of the earth.

The way to counter Russian disinformation campaigns is to take the fight to Russia itself | Alessandro Rampazzo/AFP via Getty Images

The way to fight Chinese economic influence is to boost investment outside Europe’s borders, particularly in the critical infrastructure and economic hubs of the future, most of them in Central and Southeast Asia.

The way to counter Russian disinformation campaigns is to take the fight to Russia itself and break the hold of the Russian state over its own citizens’ minds. And finally, the way to assuage common fears about terrorism and immigration is to develop a new, aggressive foreign policy capable of dealing decisively with the Libyan and Syrian civil wars.

Crises and challenges unaddressed by an active foreign policy make themselves felt later in the domestic context. That’s how so many Commission proposals come to be: on relocating refugees, on blocking Chinese investment, on countering Russian fake news.

If the European Union turned in recent years from an exporter of stability to an importer of instability that is because it did not take its former role seriously enough.

Bruno Maçães, a former Europe minister for Portugal, is a senior adviser at Flint Global in London and a nonresident senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. His book “The Dawn of Eurasia” was published by Penguin in January.

Related stories on these topics:

Mike

“While European elites continue to believe in an international system of markets, trade and free movement of people, more and more voters see only the work of blind forces and competing states in an increasingly chaotic world.”

Actually, in Brussels, the raiders have more than 24,000 lobbyists working for them.
What’s the difference between a Chinese raider trying to fetch a port in Greece and a West European company fetching a utilities company in a country when the country becomes a Member State, and the EU obliges it to liberalise the industry?

Posted on 8/14/18 | 7:05 AM CET

Trisul Kiboko

@Mike
“What’s the difference between a Chinese raider trying to fetch a port in Greece and a West European company fetching a utilities company in a country when the country becomes a Member State, and the EU obliges it to liberalise the industry?”

The difference is huge. It is in that Greece has completely open access to West European markets. It is that EU member states are guaranteeing Greek debt. It is that Greeks are fully represented in EU institutions from the European Council to the European Parliament and Court … none of this is true with China.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 8:34 AM CET

Mike

@Trisul Kiboko

Your answer is beside the point. The privatization is the issue. I.e. the EU commands private companies to manage public infrastructure. The Chinese for example could as well buy a stake, or the whole, of the utilities company.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:08 AM CET

Wouter Van het Schip

“The way to fight Chinese economic influence is to boost investment outside Europe’s borders, particularly in the critical infrastructure and economic hubs of the future, most of them in Central and Southeast Asia.”

Can someone explain what the author means? How exactly would that counter Chinese economic influence?

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:33 AM CET

Jo Docus

@Mike

“What’s the difference between a Chinese raider trying to fetch a port in Greece and a West European company fetching a utilities company in a country when the country becomes a Member State, and the EU obliges it to liberalise the industry?”

Let me explain the difference to you.

That Chinese raider is an exponent )and likely an agent) of an aggressive and dictatorial country with a state-controlled economy, that has for the past twenty years been on a deliberate, well-planned, well-coordinated national drive to manipulate, steal, and defraud its way to the top in a deliberately rigged zero-sum game.

That European company is merely following in the footsteps of the EU-wide consensus that the public sector can benefit from exposure to the market (a.k.a. liberalisation) and is part of a network (the EU) that provides considerable benefits to its member states.

That EU company gives back in numerous ways, whereas that Chinese raider doesn’t.

People should open their eyes about China. I’d be the last to defend anything to do with Mr. Trump, but in this one respect his querulant attitude is on the money.

We can see you love to slag the EU, but just find some other aspect to pick on, will you?

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:39 AM CET

Johan Stavers

Without Charles Martel or the reconquesta there wouldn’t have been a Portuguese Empire.
Likewise, the Dutch wouldn’t have had their golden age without first fighting of the Spanish.

Before taking on the world you first have to set your own house in order.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:43 AM CET

Mike

@Jo Docus

“That European company is merely following in the footsteps of the EU-wide consensus that the public sector can benefit from exposure to the market (a.k.a. liberalisation) and is part of a network (the EU) that provides considerable benefits to its member states.”

Could you please explain how the privatized company provides considerable benefits to the EU member states if the profits are chanelled to, e.g., China?

Also, please provide proof there is “EU-wide consensus that the public sector can benefit from exposure to the market “. Thanks.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:46 AM CET

Mike

@Jo Docus

The same question goes for your statement: “That EU company gives back in numerous ways”. Cheers,

Posted on 8/14/18 | 10:27 AM CET

peter lintner

“We should invest in Central Asia and Africa, have pro-active foreign policy, fix Syria and Libya.”

When will these eurocrats wake up? We dont have money to fix the world. Europe is broke.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 2:21 PM CET

Misiu Baer

@Mike

It’s not he EU but the EuroZone member states plus the IMF that are forcing Greece to privatize state held assets. For better or worse, it is done n answer to Greece’s debt problem.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 2:33 PM CET

Mike

@Misiu Baer

“It’s not he EU but the EuroZone member states plus the IMF that are forcing Greece to privatize state held assets. For better or worse, it is done n answer to Greece’s debt problem.”

Actually, it was the Troika, composed of the European Commission, the European Central bank and the IMF.

Indeed, it has given an answer to Greece’s debt problem, for worse though.
Portugal for example, is reaching near full employment by doing the exact opposite of what the EU mandates: it has raised minimum wage, raised taxes on large profits, raised pensions,…

Posted on 8/14/18 | 2:50 PM CET

Henk Crop

That Europe is being threatened I agree. However the response the author proposes I cannot understand and it is also not supported by history.
The threat to Europe, including Russia, has come from the Islam.
The Islam could only exist by submitting other, non Islams, peoples.
They were and are highly successful. They started out in Arabia, but overtime brought the Middle East, North Africa, Europe ( up to south of Paris ), Istanbul (was Constantinopel ), Balkan, southern Russia, near Asia up to the Chinese border and Indonesia under their influence.
In Europe/Russia, at certain moment the Christian Pope and the Byzantine Pope, had enough of Islam and decided and drive them back.
In Europe the Islam could only be so successful because of the naivety and internal weakness of the European leaders.
But up to a century ago, in Rumania/Balkans, Christians had to pay extra tax and their sons were taken from home to fight for the Sultans.
The lesson from history is that Europe has to defend itself, both it’s culture and land.
In practical terms. We do not need Turkey in the EU. We should not admit great numbers of Moslim immigrants. We also should not make an ineffective deal with Iran
Trade and foreign investments is good, but I do not see how that can contribute to the defense of Europe.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 3:02 PM CET

florin silberman

@ H. Crop,
Excellent arguments well presented.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 3:56 PM CET

peter lintner

@ Henk Crop

That´s right. Muslims dont migrate, they conquer.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 5:29 PM CET

Jo Docus

@Mike

You asked three questions:

(1) “Could you please explain how the privatized company provides considerable benefits to the EU member states if the profits are chanelled to, e.g., China?”.

(2) Also, please provide proof there is “EU-wide consensus that the public sector can benefit from exposure to the market“

(3) The same question goes for your statement: “That EU company gives back in numerous ways”.

Look, I can’t give you a full private remedial tutorial on public economy here. Read up on it if you’re interested. In a nutshell the answer is: it depends.

Let me first address your question (3) and explain to you how EU-based companies benefit the EU and the people in it.

(a) Companies operating inside the EU employ staff. EU staff mostly (unless they’re in the UK, in which case they’ll award contracts to an Indian firm which is then permitted to ferry over low-wage Indian staff to the UK to do the work). When companies employ people, they pay their employees money. People use that money to live their life.
(b) They also purchase lots of stuff from other companies, who in their turn pay their employees money, etc. .
(c) In addition both those companies and their employees pay the Government money. That’s called taxation. Governments use that money to buy things and to provide services.
(d) Those companies usually want to stay in business and try to ensure that they do, and by doing so represent the assurance that there will be someone the rest of the country can look forward to sell things to in future.
(e) Last but not least, the profits they make go to EU-based company owners who may spend it, save it, or invest it.

That’s question (3) answered for you.

Question (2) is easy. As the EU has (on important things like privatisation) a consensus-based decision making structure in which every EU member can exercise a veto, it follows that any EU decision in such manners was based on consensus. Q.e.d.

As to your question (1), you seem a bit confused. Perhaps you meant to ask: “Could you please explain how the privatized (_EU-based_) company (_operating in the EU as any other EU-based company_) provides considerable benefits to the EU member states if the profits are channeled to, e.g., China?”

Let me clear things up a bit for you.

A Chinese-owned company operating in the EU like any other EU-based company usually provides the benefits I listed for you under (a), (b), (c), and (d). Only element (e) is lacking.

However there is something I haven’t explained to you so far. A Chinese company will, as a matter of strategy, generally pursue China’s best interests and not those of the EU.

I know this may be a bit confusing to you, so let me give you a few examples.

Example (I): A Chinese company that bought and is now operating port facilities in say, Piraeus, will mostly employ Greek staff, use Greek suppliers, and pay Greek taxes. So benefits (a), (b), and (c) are in place. It’s sole aim however is to provide guaranteed priority shipping to Chinese companies seeking to use Piraeus as a port through which to ship Chinese products into the EU. So benefit (d) is a bit iffy and benefit (e) is absent.

Example (II): a Chinese investment company buys a high-tech UK firm that is a vital defense supplier. For the moment this company keeps operating within the UK, so benefits (a), (b), and (c) are in place. Benefit (e) is absent as all profits go to China. However, as the new owner it brings in a new Company Policy. That new company policy is to supply everything it has to China as well, set up production facilities in China, transfer all of the “intellectual property” (patents, trade secrets, design specifications, general know-how) to China, and use those production facilities that can supply at the least cost (which will be the Chinese ones, with or without state subsidies). So benefit (d) is lost as production will be slowly but surely transferred overseas, to China. It it does, it will transfer benefits (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) from firm’s original country to China. And it will not even provide partial compensation for that by staying within the EU.

I hope that cleared things up a bit for you.

Cheers.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 6:14 PM CET

Mike

Question 1 & 3
The question(s) was/were, following my 1st comment and Trisul Kiboko’s reply to it and then yours, how does this differ from a state-owned company operating a public good? I.e. what benefits –a, b, c or d if you like– does the private company bring the state-owned company cannot?

By the way, not only in the UK, but also in the EU, Chinese, or Indian companies for that matter, may employ their nationals. They can even Post their nationals in the EU following the Posted Workers directive, cfr. the Essent case.

As to the disadvantage: it is the EU that allows the Chinese “exponent and agent of an aggressive and dictatorial” to operate public infrastructure. Whether that Chinese company itself buys the infrastructure or holds a share in another company that bought it. The EU allows both. That was my point.

Example (I) is not quite right, in particular with regards to staff and suppliers (cfr. above) and even taxes, I believe. What may be right are the negative consequences of setting up a new Company Policy. But, again, all this is made possible because of the EU.

Question 2
As a matter of fact, most privatisation has been imposed by the EU, IMF etc., either as a condition for EU membership (e.g. Romania) or afterwards (e.g. Greece). The Q.E.D. does not apply: why would a Member State refuse the privatisation of another (future) Member State’s electricity grid? Take Romania’s for instance: Romania perhaps would oppose, but the privatisation was a condition sine qua non for EU membership.

Posted on 8/14/18 | 7:01 PM CET

J C

So I think that everyone agrees that Europe is under threat from China bent on revenge for “the century of shame”, Russia dreaming of recreating USSR, and religion of peace continuing centuries of expansion, however this time through demography rather than warfare. So the author’s proposal includes investing in Central Asia and Southeast Asia which means spending money EU does not have, fomenting revolution in Russia (Germany did that in 1917 and see how that turned out…October Revolution followed by even more aggressive USSR), and boots on the ground in Libya and Syria to end their civil wars (I take it that Germany will lead these efforts). Outside of stating that former Europe minister for Portugal should know better i.e. the inner workings of Brussels bureaucracy, there’s not much one can say here. Mr. Macaes none of these things you propose are achievable by EU. Its up to individual countries to attempt to maintain the welfare of their societies, enforce the border and stay relevant in this multi polar world until EU finally gets its act together. The question is when will EU gets its act together, or actually will EU survive this assault?

Posted on 8/14/18 | 7:40 PM CET

X KM

What a whole lot of rubbish that guy wrote!

Posted on 8/14/18 | 9:54 PM CET

Gaius Suetonius

“O esplendor de Portugal.” Its heyday gone, and its court moved to Brazil, the Portuguese empire had become but a service-hatch for the British. Today, Portugal is becoming an investment hub for Angolan and Brazilian fortunes –the colonizer colonialized.

The Chinese empire was aware of its Roman counterpart.
Today, there is a branch of a Chinese investment bank in a backstreet of Rue de la Loi, where the EU Commission is. The Chinese set up universities and Sino European centres. They study the West European lobbyists, who persuaded the Eurocrats to privatise public infrastructure and services. The Chinese will persuade the Commissioners and their staff the same way, with bribery.